On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:13:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > +1 for widening these counters, but since they're global variables, -0.2 > or so for back-patching. I don't know of any reason that an extension > would be touching these, but I feel like the problem isn't severe enough > to justify taking an ABI-break risk.
I would not recommend doing a back-patch because of that. I don't think that's worth taking any risk. Extension authors can have a lot of imagination. > Also, %zd is the wrong format code for int64. Recommended practice > these days is to use "%lld" with an explicit cast of the printf argument > to long long (just to be sure). That doesn't work safely before v12, > and if you did insist on back-patching further, you'd need to jump > through hoops to avoid having platform-specific format codes in a > translatable string. (The side-effects for translation seem like > an independent argument against back-patching.) Surely you meant INT64_FORMAT here? Anyway, looking at the patch, couldn't we just use uint64? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
